Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Judge decides against Internet Archive

file770.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

531–540 of 835 posts

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#531

Post by apologia »

Timwi wrote: post #416
pfisch wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally like that movies and videogames exist and can be made with large budgets because that generally makes them better. I don't see how that continues without IP.

It will continue without IP once people realize that the creative arts benefit from people doing it for the love of the art, as opposed to doing it out of a fear of starvation. People should get paid to create things, and get paid what the work is worth. Right now, people get paid a small fraction of what it's worth, while the bigger fraction goes to execs who have had no hand in creating anything of value. And those…

> People should get paid to create things, and get paid what the work is worth.

This is literally how it works today though. No one is intentionally paying employees more than they have to, and if they pay less than they have to, they lose employees.

Basically this is just an anticapitalist rant. Not useful even if one agrees with the premise.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#532

Post by breck »

vasco wrote: post #376
numpad0 wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s kind of true that idea of IP is entirely made-up, but it’s also important to recognize that it was made up to support and safeguard author’s living . IP allows authors to require values of content to be preserved, recognized, and financially rewarded(in one-time or recurring payments). In the absence of IP, printing companies can take manuscripts and contents to profit off of copies free-for-all style, bankrupti…

It was created to allow the United States to make money printing books without paying for them but not allowing other countries to print their books. Later it was expanded to keep poor countries and people from affording medicine. All enforced by threat of economic sanctions with the full backing of the US armed forces. Reading on the history of copyright would be a good start before perpetuating misconceptions.

This. People (naively or dishonestly) think because the text is "To promote the progress of science and useful arts", that it must be the case it does this. Powerful people wouldn't lie, would they?

In reality (c)opywrong and patent law does the opposite. It promotes the collection of money and power to the 1% to the detriment of the progress of science and useful arts.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#533

Post by endisneigh »

criddell wrote: post #512
endisneigh wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. And there lies the issue. Internet archive has the book and lends the book simultaneously. Hence why they lost.

Do you think it would have made a difference if they bought three copies of the book and then shredded two of them? That way they would have the original they scanned, their digital version they copy to lend, and the loaned digital copy.

No, because they still wouldn’t be lending out what was bought.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#534

Post by misnome »

unopened wrote: post #51
bawolff wrote: post #9

Wow, reading the article this seems like a clear cut case. Did IA really think they could win this? Edit: reading other sources, it seems like the crux of the idea is they would only lend out books where they had the same number of physical copies. I can see the reasoning for that, but it seems hard for fair use to get you there.

If anything, their "first sale doctrine" route seems like a stronger argument than fair use here. When you purchase a copy of a work, you have the right to lend, sell, or share that copy without any additional payment or permission required to the creator. This is how libraries have operated for centuries. I think what IA was doing, making sure they only lend out as many copies as they physically own, was clearly wit…

> I think what IA was doing, making sure they only lend out as many copies as they physically own,

Part of this points out that they weren’t even doing that; there was no process to ensure that the “partnered” library wasn’t simultaneously lending out their copy.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#535

Post by misnome »

gaganyaan wrote: post #315
duxup wrote: post #98

I'm bummed IA chose to pick this fight by declaring this magical COVID emergency and lending more digital copies than they owned. The outcome seemed inevitable and IMO IA has been dishonest about what the lawsuit with its own statements. It makes me wonder if there are any adults at the helm at IA and I worry about its future. IA is an amazing resource... I don't understand why they chose this hill to fight on.

What's magical is the thinking involved in copyright, particularly as it involves the digital space. I 100% guarantee that if a dead tree library xeroxed their books during a national emergency, nobody would be making comments like this. Somehow, because computers are involved, magical thinking gets a pass.

It’s not magical thinking if the law agrees.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#537

Post by ipcress_file »

SideQuark wrote: post #336
ipcress_file wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't advocate for breaking the law. I said I disagreed with the whole thing. I was pointing out that the approach had worked in the past, because the previous poster had argued that "breaking [the law] before it has changed is risky and foolish, and does more harm than good."

The previous poster made a more defensible statement given the totality of outcomes when breaking the law. If I told someone smoking is bad forr their health, would you follow with "I know a person that smoked till 98" as reasonable advice? This is the same argument. And in this case, the actions of IA may well end them for all of us. That's not such a good outcome for breaking the law, is it?

This is a faulty parallel. Someone who smokes until they're 98 is not engaged in a quest to change the general outcome of smoking for all others.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#538

Post by agalunar »

cxr wrote: post #511
eyelidlessness wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just reading through, the distinction seems pretty obvious to me. It doesn’t reinforce several of my ideological perspectives, even contradicts some, but the distinction is plain as day. Physical things are subject to the laws of physics (can’t be in two places at once), idea “things” are much more ephemeral and thus much less restricted by those same rules (an idea can propagate basically infinitely and be “had” by…

The creative effort comprising time and attention that goes into bringing a work into existence is rivalrous. That's what IP law aims to protect/reward. People can insist on pretending not to understand this every time the argument comes up, but it's at their own peril; the world is not going to undergo IP reform as a result of anyone misconstruing or misrepresenting the issue as if it's really about whether or not p…

Speaking as to my own opinion now:

I'm skeptical that "encouraging creators by offering protections" is much more than a rationalization. (And I'm not sure whether it's historically accurate, although that's beside the point.) It doesn't seem like the concept of intellectual property and its protection under the law have been effective at encouraging people to create things; they seem to be more effective at encouraging rent seeking. If we want to enable and encourage people to create things, we should pay them to create – not pay them to share something after they've already created it.

For example, we can pay someone to perform the labor to create something we want (contracts), we can finance their endeavours or subsidize their living expenses if we like their work (the patron model), and so on. In fact, we already do these things, but their effectiveness is limited because our current laws favor other business models.

And there's a wonderful reciprocity: if I pay someone to create something, not only do I get what I want, but everyone else gets to benefit from it too. And the things that other people pay to have created I also get to enjoy (and there are a lot more "other people" than there are "me").

[This is the visualization of a goal (or at least an alternative way of going about things) and an argument for its possibility. Unfortunately I can't claim to know its feasibility, how to get there from here, or even which tactics would be effective, but I hope to have good answers some day.]

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#539

Post by berniedurfee »

cat_plus_plus wrote: post #285

Intellectual property is an unnatural, made up construct that will one day be seen as ridiculous as absolute monarchy is today. If we are going to allow it and penalize people who are doing natural human things like sharing with friends, there has to be a specific benefit to society in every instance. For example, pay taxes on copyrights and patents, increasing every year to reflect disturbance caused to society.

But doesn’t that conflict with the practicalities of economics?

If everyone freely creates copies of what I produce, because they can, I can’t go buy things that can’t be easily replicated, like food or shelter.

If IP is free for everyone, what do we do with all the people who need to live solely by producing IP?

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#540

Post by misnome »

gaganyaan wrote: post #322
jmpman wrote: post #245

I’m of the view that the authors/publishers should have to have willingly given up their rights to allow this. When I put something down on paper and sell it, my intention isn’t to allow it to be traded every 35 seconds on the internet, it’s to have made a single copy. Now if the authors/publishers want to allow the physical copy to be lent digitally like IA is doing, I’m all for them having some lic they can sell wh…

You're part of the problem, and your view is a relic of the past. I'm glad that dinosaurs are quickly becoming curios for museums.

Exactly, authors should be glad to be paid $7.99 - once - every time they write a book, and be happy about it. Anything further is just proof of their obsolesence.
Post reply on HN